If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[frigidweirdo]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

 

[dblack]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a corrupt system that allows people to vote to take money from others to pay for things they want...it's the same as holding up a liquor store, except you personally are not holding the gun.

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Economist Walter E Williams wrote a piece similar to this. He asked, if I went into my neighbors home, stole their money, but gave it to another neighbor down the street who needed medical care, would I be breaking the law? Of course I would, and I would be put in jail if not prison. But why is it that when government does the exact same thing, they do so with impunity and even praised for their actions?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it is such a bad idea why does it only cost half as much and covers all?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Economist Walter E Williams wrote a piece similar to this. He asked, if I went into my neighbors home, stole their money, but gave it to another neighbor down the street who needed medical care, would I be breaking the law? Of course I would, and I would be put in jail if not prison. But why is it that when government does the exact same thing, they do so with impunity and even praised for their actions?

Yes, it's a problem. And you have the right saying the poor are taking that money, the left saying the rich are taking that money, and the govt sitting there and getting re-elected time and time and time and time again.

I keep saying the system is broken, but people keep ignoring that the system needs to be changed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Economist Walter E Williams wrote a piece similar to this. He asked, if I went into my neighbors home, stole their money, but gave it to another neighbor down the street who needed medical care, would I be breaking the law? Of course I would, and I would be put in jail if not prison. But why is it that when government does the exact same thing, they do so with impunity and even praised for their actions?

Yes, it's a problem. And you have the right saying the poor are taking that money, the left saying the rich are taking that money, and the govt sitting there and getting re-elected time and time and time and time again.

I keep saying the system is broken, but people keep ignoring that the system needs to be changed.

I agree. The system does need to be changed. It should be every man for himself. Why? Because every man would try harder.

During Thanksgiving, Rush Limbaugh tells the real story of the holiday. People believe it was created to give thanks to the Indians, but that was only part of it.

After the Indians taught settlers how to grow food, the settlers created a system where people could bring in their harvest and exchange it for other goods grown by other settlers. The problem it created is some would not grow anything at all, they would simply come to take advantage of the producers.

As with our welfare system, it resulted in a failure, so they created a fair exchange system. If you wanted to take a bushel of apples, you needed to bring a bushel of something else like wheat or grapes.

The result of the new system (unlike the old system) is that everybody produced, and it led to an abundance of food they needed to get rid of; they didn't have refrigerators back then. So they created Thanksgiving to get rid of the food and invited the Indians to share in their success.

A system that rewards failure and penalizes success will lead to more failures in society, and that's what needs to be changed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think heartless people that think nothing of life or even the quality of life in this nation should be deported to the fucking sun.

They're just nasty mother fuckers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Economist Walter E Williams wrote a piece similar to this. He asked, if I went into my neighbors home, stole their money, but gave it to another neighbor down the street who needed medical care, would I be breaking the law? Of course I would, and I would be put in jail if not prison. But why is it that when government does the exact same thing, they do so with impunity and even praised for their actions?

Yes, it's a problem. And you have the right saying the poor are taking that money, the left saying the rich are taking that money, and the govt sitting there and getting re-elected time and time and time and time again.

I keep saying the system is broken, but people keep ignoring that the system needs to be changed.

I agree. The system does need to be changed. It should be every man for himself. Why? Because every man would try harder.

During Thanksgiving, Rush Limbaugh tells the real story of the holiday. People believe it was created to give thanks to the Indians, but that was only part of it.

After the Indians taught settlers how to grow food, the settlers created a system where people could bring in their harvest and exchange it for other goods grown by other settlers. The problem it created is some would not grow anything at all, they would simply come to take advantage of the producers.

As with our welfare system, it resulted in a failure, so they created a fair exchange system. If you wanted to take a bushel of apples, you needed to bring a bushel of something else like wheat or grapes.

The result of the new system (unlike the old system) is that everybody produced, and it led to an abundance of food they needed to get rid of; they didn't have refrigerators back then. So they created Thanksgiving to get rid of the food and invited the Indians to share in their success.

A system that rewards failure and penalizes success will lead to more failures in society, and that's what needs to be changed.

So, you're an anarchist?

Unfortunately for you, every man for himself leads to some men ruling over others, and others accepting that rule. Only there are no rules for gang that gets produced, and all hell breaks loose. Anarchy fails because humans will try and control others, and what you end up with is some kind of absolute monarchy again.

The reason why people believe democracy is the worst of all the systems, is because it gives everyone a say. In the US it doesn't quite work like that though, and the rich have managed to manipulate the system to take control from the people.

Yes, I agree that a system of you produce and then you can exchange is the way forwards.

However here's the problem.

I produce a kilo of bad apples and you produce a kilo of amazing oranges. Under the system you suggested, they'd be worth the same. However we have a monetary system which suggests that I see your apples and bad and I'll only pay 1/3rd of the price that I would pay for the oranges.

Now, take this over to how people get paid for doing jobs.

Teachers. How much should a teacher get paid? They don't produce anything with a physical value. What they produce is education, something that is difficult to put a value on.
Then you have a trader guy. He does some deals ships some stuff and he makes an absolute fortune.

Why should the latter be earning more than the former? The former earns less because they work for the govt, the latter goes free market. Should teachers go free market? Well, in education it doesn't seem to work like that too much. Yes, there are private schools and good teachers can go to those private schools and try and earn their value. But then not all of them can.

This is just one example of how the system doesn't always work as maybe you would think it should. This is why there is regulation of capitalism to make it better.

As with anarchy, unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, it leads to politicians being in the pay of the rich, even in the US it happens with regulated capitalism because the rich are controlling the regulation to a certain extend.

Back to the system. How do you make a system which the rich find difficult to control? More political parties, more instability within voting system for the people who are politicians, more oversight by having more political parties and those who manage to get the ear of the people find it easier to get into politics.

You look at Germany, a system which I like to present as a good system, not perfect of course, but much better than the US.

There's a party called Alternative for Germany. They were founded in April 2013. That's just over 4 years ago.

In September of that year they gained 4.7% of the vote in the Federal election.

In 2014 they gained 7.1% of the vote in the EU elections.

In state elections they've been doing very well, in Saxony-Anhalt they came second, in Baden-Wuerttemberg they gained 24.2% of the vote.

There's a German federal election on the 24th September, and you'd expect them to get seats in the Bundestag this time out with more than 5% of the vote.

That'd be 4 1/2 years since their founding.

Go to the US.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971. I don't know how many Federal Congressmen and women they've ever had, but they currently have none. They're the third party in the US. They have one seat in State Senates. Three lower house members in the States. No governorships, they have 155 "other elected offices"

Compare that to the main two parties and it's nothing.

Germany's political system is mobile. The rich don't like it as much, they can't control it as easily, people's votes are worth far more.

 

[dblack]

But, but ... We the People!!!

See, it works like this. Beating up your neighbor and taking his stuff is only wrong if you do it by yourself. But if the majority is on your side - anything goes!

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But what happens if your neighbor got the stuff in the first place by screwing someone else over?

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

 

[dblack]

Yes, I agree that a system of you produce and then you can exchange is the way forwards.

However here's the problem.

I produce a kilo of bad apples and you produce a kilo of amazing oranges. Under the system you suggested, they'd be worth the same. However we have a monetary system which suggests that I see your apples and bad and I'll only pay 1/3rd of the price that I would pay for the oranges.

What are you talking about? Who has suggested a system where bad apples and amazing oranges are worth the same?

Now, take this over to how people get paid for doing jobs.

Teachers. How much should a teacher get paid? They don't produce anything with a physical value. What they produce is education, something that is difficult to put a value on.
Then you have a trader guy. He does some deals ships some stuff and he makes an absolute fortune.

Why should the latter be earning more than the former? The former earns less because they work for the govt, the latter goes free market. Should teachers go free market? Well, in education it doesn't seem to work like that too much. Yes, there are private schools and good teachers can go to those private schools and try and earn their value. But then not all of them can.

Heh... that's a great argument for privatizing education. Was that your goal?

This is just one example of how the system doesn't always work as maybe you would think it should. This is why there is regulation of capitalism to make it better.

Are you drunk? You just pointed out how teachers are getting screwed because they work for government and then you use that as justification for regulating capitalism. ???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

You want to trust government as to what is fair? Look at government now! Do you think they would be a good judge at something like that?

 

[dblack]

Then prosecute them and put them in jail.

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

No. I said what I wanted to say. You want to use the tax system to punish the guilty and compensate victims. That's not its purpose. That's what the justice system is for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I agree that a system of you produce and then you can exchange is the way forwards.

However here's the problem.

I produce a kilo of bad apples and you produce a kilo of amazing oranges. Under the system you suggested, they'd be worth the same. However we have a monetary system which suggests that I see your apples and bad and I'll only pay 1/3rd of the price that I would pay for the oranges.

What are you talking about? Who has suggested a system where bad apples and amazing oranges are worth the same?

Now, take this over to how people get paid for doing jobs.

Teachers. How much should a teacher get paid? They don't produce anything with a physical value. What they produce is education, something that is difficult to put a value on.
Then you have a trader guy. He does some deals ships some stuff and he makes an absolute fortune.

Why should the latter be earning more than the former? The former earns less because they work for the govt, the latter goes free market. Should teachers go free market? Well, in education it doesn't seem to work like that too much. Yes, there are private schools and good teachers can go to those private schools and try and earn their value. But then not all of them can.

Heh... that's a great argument for privatizing education. Was that your goal?

This is just one example of how the system doesn't always work as maybe you would think it should. This is why there is regulation of capitalism to make it better.

Are you drunk? You just pointed out how teachers are getting screwed because they work for government and then you use that as justification for regulating capitalism. ???

Try this: read the post I was replying to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

You want to trust government as to what is fair? Look at government now! Do you think they would be a good judge at something like that?

Do I trust the govt with what is fair? No, not really. That's not the point. Unless I have the power I either trust these people or I fight these people. But which ever way it goes, I have to hope I can trust someone. Now, make a govt system where more trust worthy people get in, where there is more ability for people to vote those who aren't trust worthy out, and you have a more trustworthy govt. Right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they won't, because the whole system is made for this to be legitimized.

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

No. I said what I wanted to say. You want to use the tax system to punish the guilty and compensate victims. That's not its purpose. That's what the justice system is for.

Do I? I don't remember ever saying that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unfortunately for you, every man for himself leads to some men ruling over others, and others accepting that rule. Only there are no rules for gang that gets produced, and all hell breaks loose. Anarchy fails because humans will try and control others, and what you end up with is some kind of absolute monarchy again.

And you don't think government does that?

The last administration said I had to buy health insurance or else. How is that different than a guy on the street telling me I have to pay him protection money in order to prevent my car from being damaged in my driveway?

If you don't give them money (taxes) they want, they will come to your door, take you away, and throw you in a cage.

In some liberal states, you are not allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if met with such force, or again, they will lock you in a cage.

Yes, this is men ruling over other men.

The reason why people believe democracy is the worst of all the systems, is because it gives everyone a say. In the US it doesn't quite work like that though, and the rich have managed to manipulate the system to take control from the people.

What control have the rich taken from the people? We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

It's government that takes control away from the people--not the rich.

Teachers. How much should a teacher get paid? They don't produce anything with a physical value. What they produce is education, something that is difficult to put a value on.
Then you have a trader guy. He does some deals ships some stuff and he makes an absolute fortune.

Why should the latter be earning more than the former? The former earns less because they work for the govt, the latter goes free market. Should teachers go free market? Well, in education it doesn't seem to work like that too much. Yes, there are private schools and good teachers can go to those private schools and try and earn their value. But then not all of them can.

Your worth as a worker (government or private) is as much as an employer could pay somebody else to do the same job with the same quality. That's it.

In other words, if you are in an industry where anybody can do your job, your value decreases. It's basic supply and demand.

You have a job sweeping floors, well......anybody can sweep a floor, it doesn't take any special kind of training or talent, therefore the job of sweeping a floor doesn't pay very much. Perhaps you advance from floor sweeping to driving a tow motor. Sure, you can teach anybody how to operate a tow motor, but to be good at it is another thing. Therefore if you produce quality work on that tow motor, you make more money than sweeping a floor.

If you get into a trade like a plumber or electrician, that requires training, it requires experience, you have to have a knack for the work. Because not everybody can be a plumber or electrician (for whatever reason) you make better money than driving a tow motor.

Teachers are a dime a dozen. A lot of kids go to college to be a teacher, and therefore, too much supply and not enough demand. I've known several teachers out of work because there was no work to be found. It's luck if you can land a good job as a teacher. It's a job where you get a combined four months paid vacation every year, so it's not a wonder why everybody wants to teach.

Back to the system. How do you make a system which the rich find difficult to control? More political parties, more instability within voting system for the people who are politicians, more oversight by having more political parties and those who manage to get the ear of the people find it easier to get into politics.

You look at Germany, a system which I like to present as a good system, not perfect of course, but much better than the US.

Yet all you people who tell us how great it is in other places never leave the US and go there. Why?

I worked with a German immigrant. He moved here when he was 12 years old. He used to go on vacation in Germany, but always came back to the US. I asked him if he ever wanted to move back home. He said there is no place like the USA. He said he loved Germany; its a great place to visit, but he wouldn't want to live there again.

There is no authority as to how many parties we have. We the people decided on a two-party system. Do you think government should force more parties on us that we don't want?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What???

Seriously, if someone is screwing people - prosecute them. That's the entire fucking purpose of government. How is that a problem?

Listen, the people thing is an analogy for the govt, right?

Okay, does the govt screw people over? The whole point here was that if a rich person has lots of money, that it's THEIR money. The assumption being they gained it fairly and squarely.

However the govt fucks people around. Trump got like $900 million from New York City govt alone, then there's Florida and Chicago on top of this. Did he earn this money fairly? Competing on equal terms with his competitors? No, he bought politicians, he paid them money and they paid him back.

If money is earned in this manner it is not ILLEGAL, Trump could not be prosecuted for this. However this doesn't make it right.

Now, if your neighbor has done something similar, they can't be prosecuted. However when it comes to taxation, can we say "it's their money and they shouldn't be taxed much on it"?

Right. This is exactly what's going on. We're using the tax system instead of the courts because it's more convenient. It lets us ignore sticky details like evidence and due process.

The taxation power should be reserved for funding government, and not used (abused) as a remedial justice system.

I'm not really sure where you're going on this one.

Tax should be fair, to be fair it requires the govt to look into what is fair, it requires all people at a similar level to be paying the same amount. Is that what you wanted to say?

You want to trust government as to what is fair? Look at government now! Do you think they would be a good judge at something like that?

Do I trust the govt with what is fair? No, not really. That's not the point. Unless I have the power I either trust these people or I fight these people. But which ever way it goes, I have to hope I can trust someone. Now, make a govt system where more trust worthy people get in, where there is more ability for people to vote those who aren't trust worthy out, and you have a more trustworthy govt. Right?

It's impossible to do because of our freedom of press.

We will never get good people into office as long as liberal media is alive and well. Nobody wants to put themselves or their families through the BS just to become a government leader. Look at what they are doing to Trump. They've attacked several members of his family including his wife, his daughter, and his son. Who wants to go through that?

We the people gave media that power by buying their papers, going to their internet sites, writing or emailing them about stories they wrote or policies. We gave them that power, and until we take that power away form them, we limit the amount and kind of people that are willing to run for office.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unfortunately for you, every man for himself leads to some men ruling over others, and others accepting that rule. Only there are no rules for gang that gets produced, and all hell breaks loose. Anarchy fails because humans will try and control others, and what you end up with is some kind of absolute monarchy again.

And you don't think government does that?

The last administration said I had to buy health insurance or else. How is that different than a guy on the street telling me I have to pay him protection money in order to prevent my car from being damaged in my driveway?

If you don't give them money (taxes) they want, they will come to your door, take you away, and throw you in a cage.

In some liberal states, you are not allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if met with such force, or again, they will lock you in a cage.

Yes, this is men ruling over other men.

The reason why people believe democracy is the worst of all the systems, is because it gives everyone a say. In the US it doesn't quite work like that though, and the rich have managed to manipulate the system to take control from the people.

What control have the rich taken from the people? We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

It's government that takes control away from the people--not the rich.

Teachers. How much should a teacher get paid? They don't produce anything with a physical value. What they produce is education, something that is difficult to put a value on.
Then you have a trader guy. He does some deals ships some stuff and he makes an absolute fortune.

Why should the latter be earning more than the former? The former earns less because they work for the govt, the latter goes free market. Should teachers go free market? Well, in education it doesn't seem to work like that too much. Yes, there are private schools and good teachers can go to those private schools and try and earn their value. But then not all of them can.

Your worth as a worker (government or private) is as much as an employer could pay somebody else to do the same job with the same quality. That's it.

In other words, if you are in an industry where anybody can do your job, your value decreases. It's basic supply and demand.

You have a job sweeping floors, well......anybody can sweep a floor, it doesn't take any special kind of training or talent, therefore the job of sweeping a floor doesn't pay very much. Perhaps you advance from floor sweeping to driving a tow motor. Sure, you can teach anybody how to operate a tow motor, but to be good at it is another thing. Therefore if you produce quality work on that tow motor, you make more money than sweeping a floor.

If you get into a trade like a plumber or electrician, that requires training, it requires experience, you have to have a knack for the work. Because not everybody can be a plumber or electrician (for whatever reason) you make better money than driving a tow motor.

Teachers are a dime a dozen. A lot of kids go to college to be a teacher, and therefore, too much supply and not enough demand. I've known several teachers out of work because there was no work to be found. It's luck if you can land a good job as a teacher. It's a job where you get a combined four months paid vacation every year, so it's not a wonder why everybody wants to teach.

Back to the system. How do you make a system which the rich find difficult to control? More political parties, more instability within voting system for the people who are politicians, more oversight by having more political parties and those who manage to get the ear of the people find it easier to get into politics.

You look at Germany, a system which I like to present as a good system, not perfect of course, but much better than the US.

Yet all you people who tell us how great it is in other places never leave the US and go there. Why?

I worked with a German immigrant. He moved here when he was 12 years old. He used to go on vacation in Germany, but always came back to the US. I asked him if he ever wanted to move back home. He said there is no place like the USA. He said he loved Germany; its a great place to visit, but he wouldn't want to live there again.

There is no authority as to how many parties we have. We the people decided on a two-party system. Do you think government should force more parties on us that we don't want?

And governments all over the world don't tell you that you have to pay taxes or else?

Yes, how is it different from a guy down the street saying you have to pay him protection money? Well, probably they won't kill you if you don't pay up. There's a difference.

I'd prefer the govt to the guy down the street. I'd prefer people elected than people with no oversight.

Life's hard Ray.

When it comes to the rich taking the control, it's all about their ability to control the politicians.

The politicians are looking to get re-elected, they need money, they get their money from backers like the Koch Brothers or many others out there. They need to keep the rich guys sweet to keep the money rolling in.

Yes, your worth as a person is based on some kind of supply and demand. But then you get those who manage to diddle the system, corruption some call it, politics others call it. Would Trump be where he is today had it not for him essentially bribing politicians to give him tax breaks and the like? $900 million from New York City alone.... made him more competitive because he was willing to pay the bribes.

Ray, you're bringing up the whole "why don't you go there if it's so great" argument AGAIN. It was bullshit the last time and it's bullshit this time.

A) You don't know where the hell I go
B) this is about talking politics, and you're just like "fuck off and go there then" as if we're two dumbfuck pricks drunk and stinking on the streets....